The High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed established Supreme Court jurisprudence on “cruelty” and “desertion” under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment clarifies that persistent quarrels, physical abuse, false complaints, and long-term separation independently or cumulatively amount to grounds for divorce. The decision applies binding authority for subordinate courts in matrimonial disputes and comprehensively reviews the evolution of legal standards for cruelty and desertion.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA(MAT)/185/2022 of SMT. LEELA VERMA Vs HEERALAL VERMA CNR CGHC010331472022 |
| Date of Registration | 31-10-2022 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench (Justice Rajani Dubey & Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedents on “cruelty” and “desertion” under Hindu Marriage Act |
| Type of Law | Family Law (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court draws upon detailed Supreme Court explanations on the scope of “cruelty,” emphasizing cumulative effect, social context, and parties’ conduct (Bhagat, Suman Kapur, Joydeep Majumdar, Samar Ghosh). The court also cites precedent on what constitutes “desertion” (Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani, Debananda Tamuli, Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar) and on alimony determination (Rajnesh v. Neha, Kiran Jyot Maini, Vinny Parmvir Parmar). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Parties married in 1978, had three children. Marital discord led to maintenance arrangement and multiple criminal complaints. The wife and daughter assaulted the husband; FIRs and maintenance claims were filed. Parties lived separately in the same premises since 2010, with the husband leaving in 2017; no marital cohabitation since. Trial court found for the husband, decreeing divorce for cruelty and desertion. The wife appealed, denying cruelty and desertion and alleging oppressive conduct by husband. The appeal was dismissed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the State of Chhattisgarh deciding matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court when dealing with facts involving repeated complaints, persistent quarrels, and prolonged separation as cruelty/desertion. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirms that persistent abusive conduct, the lodging of multiple complaints, and cessation of cohabitation constitute both “cruelty” and “desertion” under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) HMA.
- The cumulative conduct, not isolated events, is determinative when assessing marital cruelty.
- Mental and physical cruelty may be established by documentary and oral evidence, with emphasis on the parties’ overall conduct.
- Multiple criminal and maintenance proceedings by one spouse can themselves amount to “mental cruelty.”
- The judgment provides clarity on the calculation of permanent alimony and maintenance, referencing the Supreme Court’s recent guidelines, especially in absence of asset-disclosure affidavits.
- Failure to resume cohabitation or file for restitution of conjugal rights after separation supports a finding of desertion.
- The judgment gives detailed guidance on the evidence required and legal principles governing both cruelty and desertion, serving as a ready reference for family lawyers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court commenced by outlining the admitted facts: long marriage, multiple children, prolonged discord, several criminal and maintenance proceedings, and years of separation.
- It extensively extracted and applied Supreme Court precedent (e.g., V. Bhagat, Suman Kapur, Joydeep Majumdar, Samar Ghosh) to explain the expanding contours of “cruelty,” emphasizing cumulative conduct, not isolated incidents, including mental and physical aspects, and contextual social circumstances.
- The Court noted that repeated complaints and public allegations, as well as physical altercations and refusal to perform marital duties, are independently and cumulatively sufficient to constitute “cruelty.”
- Applying the ratio from Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal, the Court underlined that persistent filing of cases against a spouse amounts to mental cruelty.
- Relying on Debananda Tamuli and Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar, the Court restated the requirements to prove desertion: factum of separation, animus deserendi, no reasonable cause, and lack of consent.
- The evidence showed parties had not cohabited or resumed relations for the statutory period; no efforts by the appellant to resume cohabitation, supporting desertion.
- On maintenance, the Court cited Rajnesh v. Neha, Vinny Parmvir Parmar and Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda—directing payment of a lump sum as permanent alimony and discussing relevant factors (social status, needs, employment, etc.).
- On these bases, the Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court decree of divorce and dismissed the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant Wife):
- Asserted that the Family Court erred in finding cruelty; filings and complaints were made as a response to ill-treatment.
- Denied inflicting cruelty on the husband and claimed she was subjected to physical and mental abuse as well as deprivation of maintenance and basic amenities.
- Argued the Family Court overlooked lack of corroborative evidence on allegations of cruelty and desertion by the husband.
- Highlighted her vulnerability, potential homelessness, and lack of financial support.
- Claimed failure of the Family Court to properly consider evidence refuting cruelty and desertion, improper framing of issues, and that no permanent alimony was granted.
Respondent (Husband):
- Denied all allegations and asserted that the wife subjected him to persistent mental cruelty, frequent quarrels, abusive language, and refusal to perform household duties since 1987.
- Detailed multiple instances of public humiliation and physical assault by wife and children.
- Pointed to multiple police complaints filed against daughter and wife, registration of criminal cases, and continued threats to his life.
- Argued inability to cohabit since 2009, eventual physical ouster from matrimonial home in 2017, and unlikelihood of resumption of marital relations.
- Asserted that the decree of divorce was justified and in accordance with law.
Factual Background
The parties were married in 1978 as per Hindu customs and have three children together. Discord developed over years, leading to arrangements for maintenance, police complaints, and multiple criminal and maintenance proceedings between the spouses. Since 2010 they lived separately within the same house, with the husband leaving in 2017 following a physical altercation. The wife continues to reside in the official quarter allotted to the husband, who now lives elsewhere. The Family Court granted the husband a decree of divorce based on cruelty and desertion, which the wife appealed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA: The Court interpreted “cruelty” by referring to precedent, holding it encompasses both mental and physical cruelty, and can be established by cumulative or grossly reprehensible single acts.
- Section 13(1)(i-b) HMA: The Court applied the statutory requirements for “desertion” – intentional abandonment without consent or reasonable cause, requiring proof of factum of separation and animus deserendi per Supreme Court precedent.
- The Court quoted the explanatory clause from HMA as discussed and consistently interpreted in Supreme Court judgments.
- For alimony, the Court referenced the statutory guidelines and recent Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing case-by-case consideration and factoring in parties’ status, assets, and needs.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The Court noted the parties’ failure to file required affidavits disclosing assets and income, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, but proceeded to determine permanent alimony based on available material and overall circumstances.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court precedent on “cruelty” and “desertion” under the Hindu Marriage Act.